Ga. school board OKs teaching creationism

CNN.com ^ | Friday, September 27, 2002 | CNN

[Heartlander]

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) --A suburban Atlanta school board Thursday night voted unanimously to allow teachers to introduce students to different views about the origins of life, among them creationism.

The Cobb County Board of Education, the state's second-largest school board, approved the policy change after limited discussion, calling it a "necessary element of providing a balanced education."

[hoosierskypilot]

"Are they going to have to issue a disclaimer saying that creationism is a theory and not a proven fact? "

Dunno. Do evolutionists issue a disclaimer that evolution is merely an hypothesis and not a proven fact?

The validity of evolution hinges upon whether or not science can demonstrate that life emanates from nonlife. Yet, the fundamental law of science is that life cannot emanate from nonlife. Therefore, evolution is not scientific, since it cannot be scientifically demonstrated.

Evolutionists are quick to point out that life evolved under different circumstances than exist today, therefore we cannot reproduce it, which is to say evolution would have to follow no known scientific laws.

Where is their disclaimer?

(BTW, just my opinion.)

[Non-Sequitur]

Dunno. Do evolutionists issue a disclaimer that evolution is merely an hypothesis and not a proven fact?

That's what this whole thing is about, the fact that Cobb County is going to issue a disclaimer on evolution and allow creationism to be taught. My question is are both going to be presented as unproven theories and what will the supporters of creationism going to think of that?

[stanz]

[We evolution types interrupt this thread to bring you the following important message:] George W. Bush is the greatest! Down with bolshevism! Defeat the socialistic dems! Win back the Senate! God bless America! [And now, let the thread continue ... ]

Right....and let's not forget Let's Roll in Iraq.

[hoosierskypilot]

"No theory in science can be 'proven'.."

Permit me, a layman, to interject a thought. Theories are proven, repeatedly. But then they are no longer theories, right? Then they become demonstrable facts.

Evolution is an hypothesis, I think. Creationism is a theory, I'm told.

I believe the creationists would simply like a balanced scientific inquiry. Legitimate scientific inquiry examines all sides of an issue, don't you think?

If we only examine those sides of an issue that correspond to what we have already decided to believe, then that's not very scientific.

Creationists simply want equal time as other "theories."

[stanz]

Evolution cannot be proven so it must be accepted on faith

So the fossil record, the molecular clock, Potassium-Argon dating and Mitochondrial DNA don't count.

[js1138]

Come on, AC, you coud contribute 300 without breaking a sweat.

I do look forward to the various faiths, including satinists and scientologists demanding equal time. I'm rather fond of Theatans. They're warm and cuddly.

[hoosierskypilot]

"..which Creation myth will be taught as "science" in the schools.."

First of all, "myth" is an emotionally laden and derogatory term that insults all who believe in Design in Creation. Creationists also believe evolution to be "myth", but we need not erect unnecessary barriers, don't you think?

Second, the "Christian" understanding of creation is essentially the same as the Jewish interpretation of scriptures, with the exception of the role of Jesus Christ.
(Gen. 1:1 for "God" is the plural form: "Elohim.")

However, I doubt teachers will become too terribly detailed in their description of creation as an explanation of the beginning of mankind since even most Christians display a profound ignorance of the Bible. At least that's what the data suggest.

[Dimensio]

Theories are proven, repeatedly. But then they are no longer theories, right? Then they become demonstrable facts.

No. Theories, by their nature, can never be proven. They can only be supported through evidence or disproven. Note that 'disproving' a theory does not necessarily mean throwing it out -- a theory that is 'disproven' could just be shown to need refinement so that the new theory more accurately reflects observed reality.

Evolution is an hypothesis, I think.

'Evolution' is fact, at term to define an actual observed process (like 'rain' defines precipitation caused by water in the atmosphere). The 'theory' of evolution is actually a catch-all for the various theories on origins of species, which rely on the process of evolution as a driving mechanism.

Creationism is a theory, I'm told.

If that is the case, then it must satisfy specific criteria. It must make a prediction, there must be tests for these predictions and there must be criteria under which it can be falsified.

I've never heard of a test that could falsify any "creation theory". In fact, I've never heard of a test for the predictions of "creation theory". I'm not sure that the "theory" even makes any tests.

I believe the creationists would simply like a balanced scientific inquiry. Legitimate scientific inquiry examines all sides of an issue, don't you think?

Science deals with observations. Creation, to have any merit within science, would need to be based on real observation, not speculation or some book that says that some god did it.

If we only examine those sides of an issue that correspond to what we have already decided to believe, then that's not very scientific.

I agree. If only people like Kent Hovind, who has advocated defacing the evolution portions of biology textbooks, could understand that.

[hoosierskypilot]

"My question is are both going to be presented as unproven theories and what will the supporters of creationism going to think of that?"

I guess it depends upon the demographic make-up of this particular district. It sounds as if the community is taking back government schools, which is what we Freepers have be begging for.

But now that a community is actually doing that, it seems some Freepers are distressed.

If this is a conservative district, and it sounds like it is, parents might push until Creationism occupies the place evolution has enjoyed all these years. I really have no idea.

But, as they say, "turn about is fair play."

What say ye?

[Dimensio]

Second, the "Christian" understanding of creation is essentially the same as the Jewish interpretation of scriptures

That's great. What about the Hindus, the Taoists, the Shintoists or any of the other non Judaic-based religions out there? Which of those get to be taught in schools?

[Dementon]

You should look into MindGuard. It might help.

[Heartlander]

But which Creation myth will be taught as "science" in the schools?

Should the ‘Theory of Common Descent’ Creation myth be the only one taught?
You know the story:
…. and on the 2 billionth day, nature accidentally puked forth chemicals and looked upon it and said, “this is neither good or bad, it’s just chemicals, and I shall form these chemicals in no specific image and without intelligence”.
Then plants, insects, fish, and man evolved from this puke without intelligence, each according to its inane kind.

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-America---

funny...didn't you know what continent America is on---who founded it---why?

[AndrewC]

You should look into MindGuard. It might help.

Is that a testimonial?

[Right Wing Professor]

No theory in science can be 'proven', but creationists never mention that -- they only bring up evolution. I wonder why...

Exactly. There is a small but quite sincere group of 'classical physicists', who dispute quantum mechanics and relativity. Mathematics have the non-Cantorians. Cosmology has got more theories than cosmologists. Yet we never hear anyone arguing we should be teaching the objections to q.m. or to the use of infinity in mathematics. Just evolution, a theory older than quantum or relativity and easily as well founded.

It would make you wonder if there's another agenda at work here, wouldn't it?

[dmz]

I have no problem whatsoever with creationism being taught in school, just not in science class, because it is not science. It is a religous belief, an article of faith. Teach it during social studies or religion class where it rightfully belongs, along side of all the other creation stories from all of the various cultures having one.

[VadeRetro]

…. and on the 2 billionth day, nature accidentally puked forth chemicals and looked upon it and said, “this is neither good or bad, it’s just chemicals, and I shall form these chemicals in no specific image and without intelligence”. Then plants, insects, fish, and man evolved from this puke without intelligence, each according to its inane kind.

I applaud not teaching this in science classes, as no textbook in the world contains such nonsense now anyway. With some relentlessly unscientific "thinkers," everything must be viewed through the filter of religious incantation.

[Heartlander]

You have a problem with which part of that little story?

[truenospinzone]

Please provide examples of scientific methods that can be used to test the possibility of creationism as an accurate depiction of the beginnings of life. If creationism proponents want equal time in science class, they need to be able to use science to at least examine their claim.

[f.Christian]

Welcome!
Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!